Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill

posted at 9:21 am on March 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

No one expected the assault-weapons ban proposed by Dianne Feinstein to pass as part of the Senate’s gun-control package. Now it won’t even be a part of it. Last night, Feinstein told reporters that Harry Reid had excluded it from the final version of the legislative package:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

“Almost certain defeat”? Left on its own as an amendment, Feinstein’s bill would be lucky to get 35 votes. She knows it, too, which is why she vented her frustration:

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

Do we need to ask? Reid can be accused of many things, but he’s not clueless when it comes to the politics of guns. Reid wants to pass a bipartisan bill to expand background checks, and he’s more than willing to sacrifice Feinstein’s effort to get it, especially since Reid was never enthusiastic about the renewed AWB in the first place.

This way, he gets two wins. First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be. Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election. It’s a win-win for Reid.

It’s more of a mixed bag for gun-rights advocates. Depending on whether the Senate bill includes federal registration of all firearms, it’s a big loss — but that has absolutely no chance of passing the House anyway, and Republicans in the Senate won’t have any reason to stick around if it does. If it doesn’t, it’s more of a headache than a problem. The upside will be the outright rejection of the AWB, which should stick a stake through its heart for another decade after politicians who took the risk to demand it ended up with egg on their faces.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

So muskets, the original assault gun (never mind that spears and stone axes are the first assault “weapons”) aren’t going to be banned? Sorry, but private citizen selling to private citizen gun sales should not be subject to background checks. It is already illegal to make straw man purchases, and a criminal who’s selling a gun to a hitman isn’t going to go to an FFL dealer to get a background check.

What might have been a factor in this exclusion is that Reid let the wrong person sponsor the ban, then be the one to have to defend it. Cruz wiped the floor with DiFi, after which she went on the air to simper, whine, and complain about how unfairly she was treated by an evil Texas Conservative.

When another loonie goes a spree, Whinestein’s bill will be dusted off and brought back after months of I-told-you-so’s by her, the MSM, and all the other liberals.

i said above in other thread. they will try the backdoor next and if that’s locked they will use a window. these gungrabbers want your guns and they are coming for them don’t wake up and be crypus one day. They have no guns so the government can take 10% of their life savings and not worry about an armed revolt. I would like to see DC try to do that here. If they take our guns they will be able to.

She doesn’t seem that upset about it. Maybe Reid promised her something. That’s usually the way he works, no? He could plan on burying it in another piece of legislation that Republicans WILL vote for and then blame them for it. Call me cynical when it comes to anything Reid has a hand in.

As a native Texan, I’m extremely proud of our new senator Ted Cruz. He hasn’t been in office 90 days yet has caused more progressives and RINOS to wet themselves than John Cornyn has in 11 years.
Possibly it was when Feinstein told Cruz how when she saw the bodies of Moscone and Milk, that she had looked at bodies that had been “shot with these weapons.” And yet the .38 cal. revolver that killed them isn’t on her ban list.
Or maybe it was saying she had seen the bullets that implode.”

My respect for the man continues to grow. His CPAC speech was very good, his thanks to Gov Palin showed he had class and his attacks on the Senate floor and in committee are direct and pointed and are causing a difference. Cruz is new yet and I hope he doesn’t get co-opted by the GOPE anytime soon. Until he does he has my support.

The battle is far from over. Y’all know it. The next nutjob will start the crusader’s of gun free nirvana all over again. Stay on your toes, don’t think because DiFi is disappointed that DiFi Jr won’t someday have Harry’s job. Keep to your posts, stay awake.

She doesn’t seem that upset about it. Maybe Reid promised her something. That’s usually the way he works, no? He could plan on burying it in another piece of legislation that Republicans WILL vote for and then blame them for it. Call me cynical when it comes to anything Reid has a hand in.

scalleywag on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 AM

yeap they saw the defense being put up and decided to try the backdoor with Schumer’s bill.

Possibly it was when Feinstein told Cruz how when she saw the bodies of Moscone and Milk, that she had looked at bodies that had been “shot with these weapons.” And yet the .38 cal. revolver that killed them isn’t on her ban list.

cartooner on March 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM

More likely because ol’ Diane carries a .38 herself for her own protection as she readily admitted. She and Mark Kelly probably had a good laugh over this bill as they stood together at the gun range, chuckling about their hypocrisy.

“The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box,” Frederick Douglass once wrote. “Without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.”

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change.

Exactly. The seemingly “innocuous” proposal for universal background checks can’t be enforced unless/until the government knows who has what. Only then can they track the transfer between private citizens.

Should a universal background check pass, registration would be the next logical step.

The NRA had better score this vote. If anything registration is worse than banning a list of specific guns.

Fenris on March 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

If the universal background check is written the same as what they did in Colorado, it’s far more intrusive than most people think – in addition to being a backdoor registration.
The bill in Colorado requires a background check for ANY transfer of possession of a weapon or magazine. That means if you let your son borrow one of your guns to go hunting or shooting – you have to do a background check on him. If let your son borrow a 30 round magazine to go target shooting, that is an illegal transfer of an illegal magazine. If you want to GIVE your gun to your own kid, you need to get a background check. This is MUCH worse than what they say in public, where they only talk about selling guns to others who MIGHT be criminals.

of course. In order to enforce the requirement to get a background check done for a private sale, they must know who currently owns each and every gun. Without a registry, they cannot prove that there was an illegal transfer without a background check.

of course. In order to enforce the requirement to get a background check done for a private sale, they must know who currently owns each and every gun. Without a registry, they cannot prove that there was an illegal transfer without a background check.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I have not yet seen the NRA make this argument.
Has anyone else?
This is the key to the whole battle – in my view.

This way, he gets two wins. First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be. Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election. It’s a win-win for Reid.

Disagree, Ed.

This is no “win” at all. This is pure damage control after the ghoulish display from the Democrats after the Sandy Hook shootings.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment.

Do we really believe that the information provided for background checks has NOT been stored for the last fifteen years?

The data doesn’t indicate whether the deal was executed (?) but the government would see this as very useful information nevertheless.

slickwillie2001 on March 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Of course it has, but theoretically not at the federal level.
At least in Colorado – the background check request is put through a computer to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. That’s as far as it goes and does not necessarily contain detailed information about what is being bought. But there is an ATF requirement for all dealers to keep their records for as long as they’re in business, and if they go out of business, those records get turned over to the ATF. And the ATF or FBI or such can inspect those records any time they want.

No, I think the focus has been on background checks – but few have taken it to the next logical step, which would be mandatory registration. Without registration – there’s no way to confirm the legality of a transfer.

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

There’s one big barrier to doing this: in order to tax firearms, they’ll have to know exactly who has them. So they have to build a database of everyone who has firearms if they want to tax them.

And building that database is where they would get fought.

I don’t think it’s an impossible barrier for them to get around. But it’s another reminder that anything that leads to a registry of gun owners is, in a word, unacceptable.

Feinstein is as corrupt a politician as has ever lived, she has funneled hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars of tax payer money to her husbands company. She has bought off the California judicial system, which is the only reason she hasn’t been prosecuted, both her and the California legal system are disgraces.

No, I think the focus has been on background checks – but few have taken it to the next logical step, which would be mandatory registration. Without registration – there’s no way to confirm the legality of a transfer.

Hill60 on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Exactly. The background check is just the first step, then when that does nothing and can’t be enforced, they point out that without a registry they can’t enforce the requirement for background checks.

Reid is an ass, but is generally a very good politician. He’s earned the “DINO” designation from many a leftist commenter over the years. If the Dems fortunes in the Senate turn, he’ll be gone fast, they still haven’t forgiven him for his failure to push a public option through his chamber.

This old bat is one of my US senators, the other one of which is just as ugly and, if possible, less intelligent.

One would think that if she was going to make destroying the Second Amendment her life’s work that she might have made it a point to learn something about firearms.

When that photo was taken, she not only held the weapon with her finger on the trigger, a big no-no to anyone with any kind of knowledge about firearms, but she apparently pointed it at her supporters and the attending press, who evidently didn’t know any better, either.

She’s not only stupid, but ignorant of her subject as well, and to top it off, she’s not even an exception among her equally ill-read colleagues. One would think that to be a US lawmaker, it would at least be a requirement that she read the Constitution, but if she can’t even educate herself on a subject that seems to obsess her, how much less do you think an old, out of date (in her opinion, that is) document like the one that forms the bedrock of our nation interests her?

I have read and studied it, and it appalls me to see how our leaders ignore it every day — even many that are supposed to be on our side.

No wonder the country is in trouble.

Don’t be under any illusion that the voters of California will ever rid us of this hag. She’s there until she drops dead — an event I hope I live to see.

And by the way, don’t bother calling me sexist. I’m female, and in my opinion, this woman belongs in remedial first grade. Or maybe federal prison. Or both.

There is no upside in any of this for democrats. The voters in favor of it were always going to vote for them. What it does do is greatly increase the number of voters who will not consider their position on anything else when it comes to voting against them. Plus they are MOTIVATED voters.

Late to the party here, but I just want to add the comment that that horrid woman needs to get her stinkin’ finger off the trigger of that firearm. The rest of us citizens are plenty capable of owning and safely using firearms. That idiot of the Senate? Not so much.